Re: debian-multimedia.org considered harmful
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Chris Knadle <Chris.Knadle@coredump.us> writes:
>> On Saturday, March 17, 2012 21:53:18, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Hence the Debian patent policy.
>>> We can't just ignore things like this, nor is it responsible use of
>>> project resources to openly flaunt disobedience to laws, however
>>> ill-conceived. But neither is it Debian policy to seek out trouble
>>> when that trouble isn't forthcoming.
>>> If you do want to be part of an organization that openly disobeys
>>> stupid laws and makes a point of civil disobedience, more power to you.
>>> I personally will be cheering you on. But the Debian Project is not
>>> that organization, nor is it structured to be that organization (and
>>> carefully structuring such an organization is important). The Debian
>>> Project has other goals, which mostly require that it work within the
>>> legal framework that it has available while making public statements
>>> when that legal framework interferes with project goals.
>> The above explains the whole reason d-m.o exists.
>> However perhaps it also might explain the tenuous relationship d.o has
>> with d-m.o because d.o may need to distance itself from the work d-m.o
> Yup. Exactly. Christian is taking on himself the legal risk of providing
> those packages, which the project as a whole can't really do. Discussion
> about the confusion that can be caused by some of the other packages he
> carries aside (and I do think that issue is real), I for one thank him for
> his work.
It would be great if dmo would restrict itself to this, or at least
separate these "add-on" packages from packages that are problematic.
Unfortunately, dmo does not categorize his archive in a way that would
allow recommending at least parts. Therefore, adding this archive to
the package sources of a system remains harmful.